Can randomness exist?

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

I'm trying to work through a problem and was hoping to get some feedback and ideas from people here. This is just for my own personal satisfaction and not for any type of publication, at all.

The question is, can anything truly be random?

Let us first define random as:

Not caused.

Now let us define caused as:

"It" is caused if a prior state necessitated "it's" occurance.


So what is your take on this? Is it possible for something to occur that was not necessitated by a prior state?

I've tried reading up on quantum physics and am slowly making progress (slowly being a key word), but I don't know what the 'official' take on this would be. I know that physics does not allow random occurances, but does quantum physics? I have the sneaking suspicion that I am not understanding what I am reading, or am misinterpreting it...

Bell's Theorom suggests one of several things, could one of the things be that the state of the particles are not necessitated by the prior state? This doesn't mean not influenced, simply not necessitated? Thus making these particles act in a random fashion?

Thanks,

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Rusty,

I'm trying to work through a problem and was hoping to get some feedback and ideas from people here. This is just for my own personal satisfaction and not for any type of publication, at all.

The question is, can anything truly be random?

Let us first define random as:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not caused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let us define caused as:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It" is caused if a prior state necessitated "it's" occurance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is your take on this? Is it possible for something to occur that was not necessitated by a prior state?

Not only is it possible, we have very strong scientific evidence that this happens all the time. I would be very careful with your definitions, though. Specifically, "causal" as you have defined it does not exhaust all possible forms of determinism.

I will try to give you an example of what I mean. Let's imagine you have a system governed by the following rules:

X(t) = f(X(t-a)),

where f is some mathematical function, and t is time.

Now this fits your definition of caused. Specifically, the state of X at any time is necessitated by its state at a prior time.

But consider this system:

X(t) = f(X(t-a), X(t+a))

In this case, the state of X at any time depends on its state at a prior time, and a future time. This example is still deterministic, but it is not causal.

I've tried reading up on quantum physics and am slowly making progress (slowly being a key word), but I don't know what the 'official' take on this would be. I know that physics does not allow random occurances, but does quantum physics?

I can only assume when you say that physics does not allow random occurrences, you are referring to classical mechanics. We now know that classical mechanics is only an approximation, which is very accurate under some conditions, but not strictly speaking a valid description of Nature.

Quantum Physics is acausal, which is to say that Quantum theory is not consistent with the hypothesis that quantum events are causal. Quantum theory is consistent with the hypothesis that quantum events are deterministic, but it does not require this. The mathematical theory itself models quantum events as being random, but does not strictly require that they be random, as long as they are acausal.

In other words, Quantum theory is non-deterministic, but reality may not be. We have stuck with the non-deterministic model so far, not out of any preference for non-determinism, but simply because the non-deterministic model we have right now it the most parsimonious explanation for the data we have at this time.

I have the sneaking suspicion that I am not understanding what I am reading, or am misinterpreting it...[/quote]

It is best to start simple. Quantum mechanics is not simple. One recommendation I can make is to do an internet search on digital filters. Once you mathematically understand the difference between a causal and acausal filter, what I am saying here will probably make more sense. And filters are a much simpler concept for trying to get the idea across then jumping straight into something as complex and counter-intuitive as QM.

Bell's Theorom suggests one of several things, could one of the things be that the state of the particles are not necessitated by the prior state? This doesn't mean not influenced, simply not necessitated?

That is exactly what it states.

Thus making these particles act in a random fashion?

They certainly appear to be random, but it is possible that they behave in a deterministic, but acausal, way. We don't know. It is, in principle, possible to falsify the hypothesis that they are random (meaning non-deterministic), but it is not possible to falsify that they are deterministic. This means that until such time as they are demonstrated to be deterministic, we must assume that they are not.

Dr. Stupid

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Thanks for the response, I'll go search for digital filters now.

That (definition of determinism)certainly makes sense though. I suppose I made a fallacious assumption when reading the definition of determinism. Two distinct moments of time certainly does not mean time in the "past". Thanks again.

But where would you get the idea that future states could necessitate present or past states? Is this possibility somehow suggested by QP?

I'll be back :)

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Hmm, well the search for digital filters is giving results that are far beyond my accounting math skillz :(

Perhaps you could recommend a book or more generalized subject that I could get a book about? I have the time, that's for sure!

[Interesting Ian]

Rusty
I'm trying to work through a problem and was hoping to get some feedback and ideas from people here. This is just for my own personal satisfaction and not for any type of publication, at all.

The question is, can anything truly be random?

Let us first define random as:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not caused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Either physically or mentally.





Now let us define caused as:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It" is caused if a prior state necessitated "it's" occurance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, I think QM implies there is inherent randomness in all physical events, although this is not noticable on the macroscopic scale. And I think it is wrong to think that events that are caused are necessitated. When we say that A causes B we simply mean that whenever A occurs B will occur. But there is nothing inherently absurd about B not occuring given A. It's just the way the world is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
[b]Rusty,



Not only is it possible, we have very strong scientific evidence that this happens all the time. I would be very careful with your definitions, though. Specifically, "causal" as you have defined it does not exhaust all possible forms of determinism.

I will try to give you an example of what I mean. Let's imagine you have a system governed by the following rules:

X(t) = f(X(t-a)),

where f is some mathematical function, and t is time.

Now this fits your definition of caused. Specifically, the state of X at any time is necessitated by its state at a prior time.

But consider this system:

X(t) = f(X(t-a), X(t+a))

In this case, the state of X at any time depends on its state at a prior time, and a future time. This example is still deterministic, but it is not causal.



Why isn't it? And what do these equations mean??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Quantum Physics is acausal, which is to say that Quantum theory is not consistent with the hypothesis that quantum events are causal. Quantum theory is consistent with the hypothesis that quantum events are deterministic, but it does not require this. The mathematical theory itself models quantum events as being random, but does not strictly require that they be random, as long as they are acausal.



Perhaps you could be good enough to name an acausal event which isn't random.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
------------------------------------------------------------
But consider this system:

X(t) = f(X(t-a), X(t+a))

In this case, the state of X at any time depends on its state at a prior time, and a future time. This example is still deterministic, but it is not causal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Why isn't it? And what do these equations mean??
It's not causal because the value of X at time t depends not only on the value of X at time t-a, which is in the past, but also on the value of X at time t+a, which is in the future.

Things whose behaviour now depends on what happens in the future are not causal.

t is time. a is a positive constant. X is some number that is varying with time t. f is a function that you plug two numbers (i.e. X at time t-a and X at time t+a) into to get a third number (i.e. X at time t).

These equations are still deterministic because (for some choices of the function f) there exists at least one function X of time that satisfies the equation.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Rusty,

But where would you get the idea that future states could necessitate present or past states?

It has been suggested by many people as a possible way for determinism to be valid in QM. I personally do not believe this is the case.

Is this possibility somehow suggested by QP?

Not really. But what QM does tell us is that if these events are deterministic, then they are not determined solely by past events.

This is what is meant when people talk about non-local hidden variables. Because of the way relativity works, any phenomenon which is non-local cannot be causal.

Hmm, well the search for digital filters is giving results that are far beyond my accounting math skillz

Perhaps you could recommend a book or more generalized subject that I could get a book about? I have the time, that's for sure!

I'll see what I can find. The books I use as references are not suitable for an introduction to the subject. What is your mathematical background?


Ian,

Why isn't it? And what do these equations mean??

It is not causal, because the state of X at time t is determined by both the state of X at time t-a, and at time t+a. This means that the state of X at time t is not necessitated by its state at prior times. That is what the equations mean.

Perhaps you could be good enough to name an acausal event which isn't random.

Nope, sorry. I don't know of any. I know of a lot of acausal events which could be random, or they could be acausally deterministic. I don't know which they are. All I know is that either description is consistent with the available evidence. Scientists often refer to such event as being random, but this is just because our model for describing these events (QM) is non-deterministic. That model may not be correct (indeed, we can be pretty certain that it is not). The correct model may or may not be deterministic. All we really know is that our current model is the simplest model available that accurately describes the available data.

Dr. Stupid

[tamiO]

The question is, can anything truly be random?

Well, that is certainly a random question !

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

My math background was better, long ago. I finished calculus studies <10 years ago and only use algebra day-to-day.

Perhaps I should just stick to "Physics for Dummies" or something :)

There are some interesting "layman's" descriptions of QP though.

Several pages are referencing an experiment where one photon is passed through a slit with another slit next to it and somehow the photon passes through both slits or something? Argh. I don't get it :p

How can one particle pass through two slits simultaneously? I must be reading something wrong here.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

So the theory of relativity states that c is the fastest any particle can move, hence anything that appears to be moving faster has actually traveled backwards through time?

You know I should find a better forum for this stuff.

[Yahzi]

The particle/slit expierment works like this:

Light is made up of photons, which are particles: and obviously, a particle can only go through one slot. So you fire a single photon, and it goes through one of two target slots. Your photon gun isn't very accurate, so its a randon chance which slot it passes through. You fire another one, and so on, and so on. Each time you fire, the photons have to go through one slot or another. You can record them one at a time, and that is in fact what they do.

Light is made up of a wave: imagine sticking a wall with two slots into a pool of water, and then dropping a pebble in the water. The pebble causes a wave, and when the wave hits the wall, two smaller waves come out through the slots. These waves then interfere with each other (drop two pebbles into the water a few feet apart and watch what happens when the waves hit each other - that's interference). Light does the same thing: if the slots are small enough, when you shine a beam of ligth through the two slots, they create an interference pattern on the other side.

Now here's the deal: both the above paragraphs are true. When you fire photons randomly one at a time through the slots, they go through random slots. But after you've fired enough photons, you notice that an interference pattern has built up on the other side of the slots - just as if you had fired all the photons at the same time.

:eek:

Ain't physics wacky?

:D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Vorticity
[B]
It's not causal because the value of X at time t depends not only on the value of X at time t-a, which is in the past, but also on the value of X at time t+a, which is in the future.

Things whose behaviour now depends on what happens in the future are not causal.



Why not? Causality is arbitrarily defined that way? Can you name any example of things whose behaviour is influenced by what will happen in the future? Hmmmm, I suppose our behaviour might be influenced by a precognitive dream of an unpleasant event ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi
The particle/slit expierment works like this:

Light is made up of photons, which are particles: and obviously, a particle can only go through one slot. So you fire a single photon, and it goes through one of two target slots. Your photon gun isn't very accurate, so its a randon chance which slot it passes through. You fire another one, and so on, and so on. Each time you fire, the photons have to go through one slot or another. You can record them one at a time, and that is in fact what they do.

Light is made up of a wave: imagine sticking a wall with two slots into a pool of water, and then dropping a pebble in the water. The pebble causes a wave, and when the wave hits the wall, two smaller waves come out through the slots. These waves then interfere with each other (drop two pebbles into the water a few feet apart and watch what happens when the waves hit each other - that's interference). Light does the same thing: if the slots are small enough, when you shine a beam of ligth through the two slots, they create an interference pattern on the other side.

Now here's the deal: both the above paragraphs are true. When you fire photons randomly one at a time through the slots, they go through random slots. But after you've fired enough photons, you notice that an interference pattern has built up on the other side of the slots - just as if you had fired all the photons at the same time.

:eek:

Ain't physics wacky?

:D

No, not at all. What's so surprising about what you've outlined?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Why not? Causality is arbitrarily defined that way?

Yes. All definitions are arbitrary. Those examples were posted in response to Rusty's question, in which he gave a definition of the word, and the examples are phrased in terms of the definitions he gave. That is also the definition used for the word in science. If you want to come up with a different arbitrary definition, by all means feel free. But such a definitions has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

Can you name any example of things whose behavior is influenced by what will happen in the future? Hmmmm, I suppose our behavior might be influenced by a precognitive dream of an unpleasant event

Maybe. I'll tell you what. If you can come up with a logical reason to believe this might actually be the case, and construct a falsifiable hypothesis for how it happens, let me know.

There is no reason to believe that such acausal deterministic phenomena exist in nature. We just do not know for sure that they do not.

Dr. Stupid

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Yahzi
The particle/slit expierment works like this:

Light is made up of photons, which are particles: and obviously, a particle can only go through one slot. So you fire a single photon, and it goes through one of two target slots. Your photon gun isn't very accurate, so its a randon chance which slot it passes through. You fire another one, and so on, and so on. Each time you fire, the photons have to go through one slot or another. You can record them one at a time, and that is in fact what they do.

Light is made up of a wave: imagine sticking a wall with two slots into a pool of water, and then dropping a pebble in the water. The pebble causes a wave, and when the wave hits the wall, two smaller waves come out through the slots. These waves then interfere with each other (drop two pebbles into the water a few feet apart and watch what happens when the waves hit each other - that's interference). Light does the same thing: if the slots are small enough, when you shine a beam of ligth through the two slots, they create an interference pattern on the other side.

Now here's the deal: both the above paragraphs are true. When you fire photons randomly one at a time through the slots, they go through random slots. But after you've fired enough photons, you notice that an interference pattern has built up on the other side of the slots - just as if you had fired all the photons at the same time.

:eek:

Ain't physics wacky?

:D

Thanks for the answer, but I have more questions.... :p

What is an interference pattern?

Also you are asserting that the gun is not accurate enough for us to predict which slit the particle will pass through. This is different from asserting that it us random under the definition I gave. Which means we are most likely using different defintions.

So, if I remember correctly, the wavelength of light is known. So where would the randomness be occuring? Are these experimenters unable to predict at what point the wave will begin? Or is it that the measurements are so miniscule that we do not have the instruments for accurate measurement?

What I mean is, where is the randomness?

O yeah, and what is an interference pattern?

Thanks for your patience and answering my Q's!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

Can you name any example of things whose behavior is influenced by what will happen in the future? Hmmmm, I suppose our behavior might be influenced by a precognitive dream of an unpleasant event
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Maybe. I'll tell you what. If you can come up with a logical reason to believe this might actually be the case, and construct a falsifiable hypothesis for how it happens, let me know.


If we can dream about past events then why is it inherently absurd to dream about future events? What distinguishes the future from the past?

Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".

[Dub]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If we can dream about past events then why is it inherently absurd to dream about future events? What distinguishes the future from the past?

Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".

Past events have already happened, future events havent; simple.

It would be possible to falsify whther you have been to your local shop to buy the Time if someone really wanted to and had the time and resources. Would just take simple detective work. How do you think crimes are ever solved?

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If we can dream about past events then why is it inherently absurd to dream about future events? What distinguishes the future from the past?[quote]

That's a good question. I haven't given that much thought. Perhaps you could start a new thread and give me some ideas? :)

[quote]
Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".

I would have to disagree here, though. But I'd rather not disagree in the random thread.


But I still wonder if Stimpson or any other physicalist/materialist would agree that random things happen. I didn't see a direct answer in any of the above.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Maybe. I'll tell you what. If you can come up with a logical reason to believe this might actually be the case, and construct a falsifiable hypothesis for how it happens, let me know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we can dream about past events then why is it inherently absurd to dream about future events?

It isn't inherently absurd. It is just contrary to our current theories about the way the World works, which are supported by substantial reliable evidence.

What distinguishes the future from the past?

You mean aside from the way we perceive the flow of time? Scientifically, the only distinction would be the symmetry breaking between the two directions. Just like the only distinction between matter and anti-matter. The two just behave slightly differently. We don't know why yet. We just know that they do.

Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".

Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?

I am not going to claim that it did, or did not, happen. I have no evidence either way. You clearly don't understand what the falsification principle actually means.

That said, this is all completely off-topic for this thread. Please show Rusty a little more respect, by not trying to derail his honest search for knowledge with your vendetta against skepticism and science.

Dr. Stupid

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Rusty,

But I still wonder if Stimpson or any other physicalist/materialist would agree that random things happen. I didn't see a direct answer in any of the above.

I can only answer for myself. My direct answer is that I don't know whether they do are not. All I know is that acausal things happen, and that right now, the best model we have for those things is one which describes them as being random.

I am sure that there are some pysicalists out there who believe that these events probably are truly random, and others who believe they probably are not. Neither of these positions are supported by scientific evidence, though.


Dr. Stupid

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

That said, this is all completely off-topic for this thread. Please show Rusty a little more respect, by not trying to derail his honest search for knowledge with your vendetta against skepticism and science.

Dr. Stupid

Thank you :)

How about this:

Can the physical existence of things be explained through cause and effect?

i.e. The occurance of the physical particles that make up my rock causally necisitate their occurance in the next time?

if f[X(t)] has rock at this location then

f[X(t+a)], where a is the smallest slice of time, requirse my rock to be at this location (unless it has moved).

Would it be accurate for me to describe the existence of this rock as a causal relationship with the prior occurances of it's existence?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
That said, this is all completely off-topic for this thread. Please show Rusty a little more respect, by not trying to derail his honest search for knowledge with your vendetta against skepticism and science.

...coming from an Atheist...
:rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Ian,



It isn't inherently absurd. It is just contrary to our current theories about the way the World works, which are supported by substantial reliable evidence.



You mean aside from the way we perceive the flow of time? Scientifically, the only distinction would be the symmetry breaking between the two directions. Just like the only distinction between matter and anti-matter. The two just behave slightly differently. We don't know why yet. We just know that they do.



Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?

I am not going to claim that it did, or did not, happen. I have no evidence either way. You clearly don't understand what the falsification principle actually means.

That said, this is all completely off-topic for this thread. Please show Rusty a little more respect, by not trying to derail his honest search for knowledge with your vendetta against skepticism and science.

Dr. Stupid

I have no vendetta against science. And I think it's you who is f*cking clueless about what falsification means. The mere fact that one cannot falsify something doesn't make it false. Go get a f*cking clue, and that applies to the rest of the Skeptical ********* on here.

Materialism isn't falsifiable. So why the f*ck doesn't it mean that isn't true. Talk about double standards.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Maybe. I'll tell you what. If you can come up with a logical reason to believe this might actually be the case, and construct a falsifiable hypothesis for how it happens, let me know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we can dream about past events then why is it inherently absurd to dream about future events?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It isn't inherently absurd. It is just contrary to our current theories about the way the World works, which are supported by substantial reliable evidence.



Name those theories that it contradicts.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?



There are some things that are unfalsifiable. But that's not important in this context as dreaming about the future is in principle falsifiable. It would just be incredibly difficult to do so. Besides, it's not a question of falsifiability but rather of verification. Retard.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are some things that are unfalsifiable. But that's not important in this context as dreaming about the future is in principle falsifiable. It would just be incredibly difficult to do so. Besides, it's not a question of falsifiability but rather of verification. Retard.

There are some things that are unfalsifiable. But that's not important in this context as dreaming about the future is in principle falsifiable. It would just be incredibly difficult to do so. Besides, it's not a question of falsifiability but rather of verification. Retard.


Let's all calm down. All Stimpson is saying is that unless we can test an argument we have little reason to accept it.

And what Ian is saying is that just because we have little reason to accept it does not mean that it must be false!

So everyone is correct here.

[evildave]

In any system in the universe wherein "all of the variables" are not accounted for, randomness exists, if only pseudo-randomness.

Especially in systems where the signal to noise ratio is very low.

As an example, take the electromagnetic spectrum. You tune a receiver to a channel where nobody's broadcasting, and there's "noise" there. (That noise is present even if someone is broadcasting, but the broadcast signal is drowning it out.) This noise is hiss and pops and other fun things.

Things happened in/to stars and other bodies long before whatever became mankind emerged from the primordial ooze, and the electromagnetic effects have only just now reached the solar system, and we're supposed to account for that?

Without randomness existing at all, randomness exists in the form of "too much information" to account for. A whole universe' worth of state (and a whole history of universal state bouncing off of things) versus the tiny amount of state we can collectively knock together in a portion of a lifetime.

These electromagnetic (and other) effects are of tiny mangnitude, but they surround us. If you want a "random" seed for unpredictable systems, you need look no further than the universally pervasive noise that is present everywhere. From minute shifts in gravity because bugs flew past the room, to exploding stars in other galaxies.

Without total information about everything, there is no way to say whether "real" randomness, or only pseudo-randomness is what exists.

But since utterly unpredictable things exist within the world on a micro and macro scale, it's "random enough" to be treated as "random" and simply deal with it. Just as an unforeseen sequence of events that has a result can be simplified down to "luck", a sequence of events that can not be predicted can be simplified down to "randomness" for models that have to deal with it.

Not that there aren't gains to be had by studying the minute causes of apparent randomness. Quite the contrary.

If a thousand physicists beat their heads on a "random" problem until one of them says "Eureka!" (not meaning he needs a vacuum cleaner) who can say what the results will be? In 20/20 hindsight, it will seem totally inevitable. Looking forward, no one can say.

[viper]

Originally posted by wraith


...coming from an Atheist...
:rolleyes:

..coming from a booger eating moron..:rolleyes:

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by evildave
In any system in the universe wherein "all of the variables" are not accounted for, randomness exists, if only pseudo-randomness.

Especially in systems where the signal to noise ratio is very low.

As an example, take the electromagnetic spectrum. You tune a receiver to a channel where nobody's broadcasting, and there's "noise" there. (That noise is present even if someone is broadcasting, but the broadcast signal is drowning it out.) This noise is hiss and pops and other fun things.

Things happened in/to stars and other bodies long before whatever became mankind emerged from the primordial ooze, and the electromagnetic effects have only just now reached the solar system, and we're supposed to account for that?

Without randomness existing at all, randomness exists in the form of "too much information" to account for. A whole universe' worth of state (and a whole history of universal state bouncing off of things) versus the tiny amount of state we can collectively knock together in a portion of a lifetime.

These electromagnetic (and other) effects are of tiny mangnitude, but they surround us. If you want a "random" seed for unpredictable systems, you need look no further than the universally pervasive noise that is present everywhere. From minute shifts in gravity because bugs flew past the room, to exploding stars in other galaxies.

Without total information about everything, there is no way to say whether "real" randomness, or only pseudo-randomness is what exists.

But since utterly unpredictable things exist within the world on a micro and macro scale, it's "random enough" to be treated as "random" and simply deal with it. Just as an unforeseen sequence of events that has a result can be simplified down to "luck", a sequence of events that can not be predicted can be simplified down to "randomness" for models that have to deal with it.

Not that there aren't gains to be had by studying the minute causes of apparent randomness. Quite the contrary.

If a thousand physicists beat their heads on a "random" problem until one of them says "Eureka!" (not meaning he needs a vacuum cleaner) who can say what the results will be? In 20/20 hindsight, it will seem totally inevitable. Looking forward, no one can say.


I'm not defining random as unpredictable. I'm defining random us uncaused, meaning that the cause will never be fully perceivable or reducable to a fully perceivable state.

It's an honest concern. How can this static be uncaused? And if it is, isn't that a valid reason for concern (with our current generally held belief systems)?

If this static is uncaused but still occurs then we have a non-physical thing. But, this static, as you said in your post, is caused by interference. You say that it is caused by interference from stars? Well that is a cause, and if we knew enough about the universe then we could predict this exact interference.

Hence not random.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Rusty,

Thank you

How about this:

Can the physical existence of things be explained through cause and effect?

I seriously doubt it. Our current cosmological models suggest that existence itself was an acausal event. Of course, we don't know for sure.

i.e. The occurance of the physical particles that make up my rock causally necisitate their occurance in the next time?

They don't causally necessitate it. But they do indicate an absurdly high probability of it.

In other words, according to QM, it is possible that your rock could literally vanish from existence right now. The odds are almost infinitesimally small.

Where such effects do manifest in a noticeable way, is at the microscopic level. Particles do all sorts of nifty things there, from popping in and out of existence, to changing into other particles, to teleporting to different locations.

Would it be accurate for me to describe the existence of this rock as a causal relationship with the prior occurances of it's existence?

No, but it would be a very, very good approximation. Imagine having a coin for every grain of sand in the world. Now imagine flipping all those coins, and having them all come up heads. The odds of your rock suddenly vanishing are far smaller than that.


Ian,

I have no vendetta against science. And I think it's you who is f*cking clueless about what falsification means. The mere fact that one cannot falsify something doesn't make it false.

I am quite aware of that. And I have never claimed that it does. I don't recall anybody ever claiming that it does.

Go get a f*cking clue, and that applies to the rest of the Skeptical ********* on here.

You only undermine your own credibility with such outbursts. Try to control yourself.

Materialism isn't falsifiable. So why the f*ck doesn't it mean that isn't true. Talk about double standards.

I am not going to rehash this old argument again. You have just ignored my arguments every other time that I have, so why should I again? Anyway, this thread is not about materialism. Stop trying to derail the conversation.

If we can dream about past events then why is it inherently absurd to dream about future events?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't inherently absurd. It is just contrary to our current theories about the way the World works, which are supported by substantial reliable evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name those theories that it contradicts.

General Relativity. This theory holds that information cannot be transmitted backwards in time without the presence of an extraordinarily strong gravitational field.

Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are some things that are unfalsifiable. But that's not important in this context as dreaming about the future is in principle falsifiable.

I never said that it was. On the contrary, I told you that if you could come up with a falsifiable hypothesis for how it happens, I would be interested. I also said is that there is no supporting evidence, and that it contradicts theories for which there is substantial supporting evidence.

It would just be incredibly difficult to do so. Besides, it's not a question of falsifiability but rather of verification. Retard.

Perhaps you should try reading what I actually said, before you call me a retard for saying something I didn't actually say.

Dr. Stupid

[c4ts]

In a purely physical sense (which does not apply to living things), can a body at rest start moving randomly, that is, move without an apparent external force acting upon it?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


I'm not defining random as unpredictable. I'm defining random us uncaused, meaning that the cause will never be fully perceivable or reducable to a fully perceivable state.

It's an honest concern. How can this static be uncaused? And if it is, isn't that a valid reason for concern (with our current generally held belief systems)?

If this static is uncaused but still occurs then we have a non-physical thing. But, this static, as you said in your post, is caused by interference. You say that it is caused by interference from stars? Well that is a cause, and if we knew enough about the universe then we could predict this exact interference.

Hence not random.

But the static is caused... by just about anything that could generate a EM pulse (nearly everything). There's just too much cause.

The problem is not that it's "uncaused", only that any investigation for the determination of actual cause for the vast majority is generally impossible. Exceptions might be a loud "pop" in static that coincided with an observed nova.

Even in "brownian" motion, there is clear and obvious cause/effect. All of the molecules getting heated up and bouncing off each other, while emitting and soaking up "heat" energy. There are just too many molecules with too many side effects happening too fast to predict outcomes for what they will all do, even before considering someone walking in the next room, transmitting mechanical energy from footsteps to the media through the floor, stirring it ever-so-slightly. We literally can't even predict a tempest in a teacup for the quantity of information.

Eventually, no matter how you attempt to prove it one way or another, you run into the problem of being utterly overrun by data which you can not even begin to harvest, let alone process faster than real-time to "predict" with.

So the answer is both yes and no. Yes, effect follows cause, and no it can not all be "perceivable or reducable to a fully perceivable state".

Too much information, changing too fast: not enough brains and none fast enough to handle the simulation.

Even if you record a fairly tiny subset of "the universe", you will fail to do so with sufficient resolution (both in detail of sample and in sample rate) to make its outcome knowable to the last detail.

What you can do is build a broad model based on what a LOT of matter does at the same time (leaving out the details), or simplified detailed models based on what small amounts of it do, (leaving out what external events and variables do).

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by evildave


But the static is caused... by just about anything that could generate a EM pulse (nearly everything). There's just too much cause.

The problem is not that it's "uncaused", only that any investigation for the determination of actual cause for the vast majority is generally impossible. Exceptions might be a loud "pop" in static that coincided with an observed nova.

Even in "brownian" motion, there is clear and obvious cause/effect. All of the molecules getting heated up and bouncing off each other, while emitting and soaking up "heat" energy. There are just too many molecules with too many side effects happening too fast to predict outcomes for what they will all do, even before considering someone walking in the next room, transmitting mechanical energy from footsteps to the media through the floor, stirring it ever-so-slightly. We literally can't even predict a tempest in a teacup for the quantity of information.

Eventually, no matter how you attempt to prove it one way or another, you run into the problem of being utterly overrun by data which you can not even begin to harvest, let alone process faster than real-time to "predict" with.

So the answer is both yes and no. Yes, effect follows cause, and no it can not all be "perceivable or reducable to a fully perceivable state".

Too much information, changing too fast: not enough brains and none fast enough to handle the simulation.

Even if you record a fairly tiny subset of "the universe", you will fail to do so with sufficient resolution (both in detail of sample and in sample rate) to make its outcome knowable to the last detail.

What you can do is build a broad model based on what a LOT of matter does at the same time (leaving out the details), or simplified detailed models based on what small amounts of it do, (leaving out what external events and variables do).

Perhaps in application it currently is not completely reducable to a perceivable state but in premise it most certainly is (asserted by materialism, and I would agree).

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Rusty,



I seriously doubt it. Our current cosmological models suggest that existence itself was an acausal event. Of course, we don't know for sure.



They don't causally necessitate it. But they do indicate an absurdly high probability of it.

In other words, according to QM, it is possible that your rock could literally vanish from existence right now. The odds are almost infinitesimally small.

Where such effects do manifest in a noticeable way, is at the microscopic level. Particles do all sorts of nifty things there, from popping in and out of existence, to changing into other particles, to teleporting to different locations.



No, but it would be a very, very good approximation. Imagine having a coin for every grain of sand in the world. Now imagine flipping all those coins, and having them all come up heads. The odds of your rock suddenly vanishing are far smaller than that.



I know that this is the best viewpoint to take scientifically thinking. But I think we are having a misunderstanding of terms. I totally agree with the premises of sceptical thought. I totally agree that some members of this forum really need to pick up Demon Haunted World and absorb it.

But as a physicalist you cannot believe that anything was not caused. If it wasn't caused then it wasn't physical. Philosophically physical things must have two traits:

1) 'it' is a cause.
2) 'it' is an effect.

So a non-caused event would not be an effect, hence it would not be physical. It would, in fact, fit the philosophical definition of random.

It appears that perhaps the word random is carrying too many connotations. In science random appears to mean highly unpredictable. In philosophy it means not an effect of anything.

So QP does appear to demonstrate things that are philosophically random?

But if I'm reading everything correctly there are disagreements about whether that is just an appearance or that is correct.

If it does, then I believe I can work QP into an argument suggesting that the "agent" does exist. All I need is any non-caused occurance to suggest that the "agent" is possible.

[Dancing David]

Oooh what's the quantum probabilty that otherwise normal and intelligent people will just start throwing out swear words and acting stupid? (As long as there is the emmission of opposing anti-swear words and anti-stupid actions)

Rust THBR: I am not sure I follow all of this, to be random would mean that we can't know the causal agent or that in the future we can't know the causal agent.

I think the Universe answers the question;
I suggest that we can't know what happened prior to the big bang.
The causes of the big bang will never be known.
Therefore the Universe itself is a random event.

By causal do you mean deterministic. I think we can have random causation.

Peace
dancing David

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


But as a physicalist you cannot believe that anything was not caused. If it wasn't caused then it wasn't physical. Philosophically physical things must have two traits:

1) 'it' is a cause.
2) 'it' is an effect.

So a non-caused event would not be an effect, hence it would not be physical. It would, in fact, fit the philosophical definition of random.

It appears that perhaps the word random is carrying too many connotations. In science random appears to mean highly unpredictable. In philosophy it means not an effect of anything.

So QP does appear to demonstrate things that are philosophically random?

But if I'm reading everything correctly there are disagreements about whether that is just an appearance or that is correct.

If it does, then I believe I can work QP into an argument suggesting that the "agent" does exist. All I need is any non-caused occurance to suggest that the "agent" is possible.

You are engaging in tautology, I'm afraid. The above statements expose the nature of your circular reasoning. Essentially, by stating that all effects must have causes you deny that true randomness exists in nature. This is a big leap, and is not justified.

I have written a paper on the matter called Hume's Determinism Refuted (drchinese.com/David/Hume's_Determinism_Refuted.htm). In part:

Philosopher David Hume developed an ingenious and historically important argument regarding cause-and-effect. In his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding [1], Hume showed that our belief in the existence of cause-and-effect is a direct result of observation, experience and inference. Our belief rests on empirical evidence; yet this belief can never be substantiated by a formal proof. We may be able to discern and express natural laws, but we cannot be sure they will be valid in the future (for example). Since we will never be able to deduce the existence of cause-and-effect (i.e. that the laws of nature are causal), Hume argued that we must assume its existence as a postulate of any scientific theory.

When quantum theory was introduced in the late 1920’s, a surprising discovery was made: the success of the theory is dependent on the existence of statistical, non-causal forces. The behavior of individual atomic particles is completely indeterministic. As a group, particles act as part of a “deterministic ensemble.” The bigger the group, the more determinism which is seen. But detail analysis has demonstrated that all fundamental particles display completely random behavior at the atomic level. They appear, in some sense, to have “free will” when observed individually; their behavior is not “caused” by anything.

The so-called “Copenhagen interpretation” described above has been the subject of much controversy, scrutiny, debate and attack. Einstein believed until his dying day that an underlying cause for the observed indeterministic behavior of quantum particles would one day be discovered. In a famous quote [3], he said “God does not play with dice.” However, the following situation exists today: 1) empirical evidence supports the concept that nature is fundamentally comprised of microscopic particles which obey indeterministic, statistical laws; 2) a theory has been presented which ties such statistical laws to large-scale (macroscopic) patterns which otherwise appear causal; and 3) modern quantum theory is the most accurate of all scientific theories.

Based on the above, it is concluded that an empirical counter-example has been presented to the theory of cause-and-effect. A single such unanswered counter-example is sufficient to refute any theory.

In other words, quantum theory runs counter to your hypothesis and is in fact the cornerstone of physical theory. Attacks by determined determinists have yet to budge the view that indeterminism reigns at the quantum level. There are variations of QM which are non-locally deterministic (i.e. David Bohm) but it makes no testable predictions which are different than standard QM. So at that point it truly becomes one's opinion. Regardless, the assumption that all physical things have causes does not stand. That is the centerpiece of your argument against randomness.

[DrChinese]

Oops, the link got messed up. It is:

http://www.drchinese.com/David/Hume's_Determinism_Refuted.htm

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Thanks for the link. I've only read through the first three pages but I want to quickly (very quickly) address your three challenges in a defense of determinsm (which, btw, I do not believe):

1.1) The definition of TLOP is such that, analytically, there can be no statistical laws. I would assert that there are underlying TLOP in control of QP, hence your statistical laws are not laws, only statistics.

1.2) I don't know what theory you are referring to.

1.3) I don't know enough about QP or physics to comment. I don't know what theory you are referring to.

2) Hume addressed this point. We will never know that the law is truly causal, but we have no reason to believe that the law only exists by our defining of similar, and many reasons to believe that the law is truly causal.

Also you assert that if we continue to assert "unknown" variables we can create an unfalsifiable theory. I assert that in principle you are absolutely incorrect. It is possible, in principle, to render everything into an observable state and observe it. Hence it is possible, in principle, to discover the falsisity in any theory.

3) I would assert that all things you list (time, mass, space, energy) are all ultimately physical so all causal relations are independant and it is possible, in principle, to render the physical relations to an observable state and hence discover an independant variable. By simply stating that it has not been done yet it does not validly follow that it cannot be done.


Now to address your post:

You are engaging in tautology, I'm afraid. The above statements expose the nature of your circular reasoning. Essentially, by stating that all effects must have causes you deny that true randomness exists in nature. This is a big leap, and is not justified.

I am not stating that all effects have causes.

I am stating that all physical occurances must analytically have cause and effect. And if something lacks one or both then it is not physical, analytically.

There is not tautaology because I am not asserting that randomness does not exist, you misunderstood what I posted.


In other words, quantum theory runs counter to your hypothesis and is in fact the cornerstone of physical theory. Attacks by determined determinists have yet to budge the view that indeterminism reigns at the quantum level. There are variations of QM which are non-locally deterministic (i.e. David Bohm) but it makes no testable predictions which are different than standard QM. So at that point it truly becomes one's opinion. Regardless, the assumption that all physical things have causes does not stand. That is the centerpiece of your argument against randomness.

What hypothesis? The definition of physical? That is not my hypothesis. I started this thread because I wanted to know if anyone had any proof that anything random could occur.

Ultimately I would *like* to see proof that randomness could occur.

I have no argument against randomness! I am saying that by definition an uncaused occurance is not physical. That is part of the definition of physical!

It's like me saying that a healthy horse has four legs. It's analytically correct.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Ok, I finished your paper. In section 3, Errors in Logic Exposed, you made many errors in your logic. Such as:

You say determinism rests on empirical evidence. You then say that:

evidence for cause and effect is bounded in such a way as to including only supporting examples

You then conclude that this means:

the evidence is no evidence at all.

Rather this means that their evidence for cause and effect only includes evidence for cause and effect. If the evidence concluded that it was not cause and effect then it would not be included in the evidence for cause and effect.

Then you say:

Huem's argument can be turned arounda nd applied equally well to the theory that the laws of nature are indeterministic

For proof you say that we see chance events in the world. You have misunderstood deterministic. Chance does not imply cause or non-cause, it implies an unknown variable.

You then assert that "Numerous events transpire which are outside of our causal control". I don't know where you read that determinism somehow requires "our causal control".

You then try to bring in the Principle of Alternative Possibilities by statine that "we cannot be held responsible since we didn't "cause" the event" in reference to being hit by a drunk driver. No one would say we would hold the victim responsible! What would be said is that (if we believe the PAP) then we are not justified in holding the drunk driver responsible because his actions were necessitated by prior states of the world.

You then state "numerous laws of nature exist which appear to be tied to probabilities rather than cause-and-effect." A law of nature can not, analytically, be dependant on probabilities. If it is then it is not a law of nature. That is like my saying that I saw something that looked like a horse but it had wings, hence horses now have wings.

You then talk about how we cannot in principle possibly reduce something as complex as weather to cause and effect. Wrong again. We are trying to do it all the time with supercomputers. You are continually displaying that you do not understand the determinists argument.

Again in the same paragraph you state, "What caused you to arrive at work this morning at a specific time? Nothing did; yet your arrival may be statistically correlated to "office hours""

A determinist would never agree with you. They would say that the prior states of the world necessitated you to arrive at the time that you did. Here is an example:

Rusty arrived for work at 1100. Rusty arrived at this time because the state of the world was such that Rusty believed to keep his job he must arrive at that time. To keep his cleints he must arrive at that time. To get his work done he must arrive at that time. etc.. etc..

I don't have enough time for this. I've only gone through one page. You need to read more about the argument you 'think' you are arguing against. Go get some of Peter Van Inwagen's and Peter Strawson's work on determinism and some of Daniel Dennet's papers on mechanism (determinism with a funny hat).

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot

1.1) The definition of TLOP is such that, analytically, there can be no statistical laws. I would assert that there are underlying TLOP in control of QP, hence your statistical laws are not laws, only statistics.

Also you assert that if we continue to assert "unknown" variables we can create an unfalsifiable theory. I assert that in principle you are absolutely incorrect. It is possible, in principle, to render everything into an observable state and observe it. Hence it is possible, in principle, to discover the falsisity in any theory.

3) I would assert that all things you list (time, mass, space, energy) are all ultimately physical so all causal relations are independant and it is possible, in principle, to render the physical relations to an observable state and hence discover an independant variable. By simply stating that it has not been done yet it does not validly follow that it cannot be done.

I am stating that all physical occurances must analytically have cause and effect. And if something lacks one or both then it is not physical, analytically.

What hypothesis? The definition of physical? That is not my hypothesis. I started this thread because I wanted to know if anyone had any proof that anything random could occur.

Ultimately I would *like* to see proof that randomness could occur.

I have no argument against randomness! I am saying that by definition an uncaused occurance is not physical. That is part of the definition of physical!

It's like me saying that a healthy horse has four legs. It's analytically correct.

Whoa! (that's a take on the horse analogy, just a little joke.) I have extracted your comments to allow me to focus on a couple of things. I got lost in your distinctions about "analytically physical" so maybe you can help out with some more examples.

TLOP = QM. That is the theory. QM is statistical, and states that there are no underlying causes for observable effects. Let's take a specific example, the observation of the polarity of an emitted photon. According to QM, the likelihood of an up polarization is equal to a side (90 degree perpendicular) polarization, and will occur randomly. There is no cause.

This can be observed in nature. Does this meet your criteria for analytically physical?

Also, you state that you would like to see a proof that anything random can occur. Can you demonstrate that anything deterministic occurs? Why do you assume that everything you see represents examples of determinism? For example, take human behavior. I would challenge anyone to demonstrate that human behavior is deterministic.

In other words, determinism is in the eye of the beholder. Hume saw determinism at work all around, but could not demonstrate that it should exist. So he assumed it. That horse doesn't fly (sorry, I got carried away).

When you say: "I am stating that all physical occurances must analytically have cause and effect." aren't you excluding random events by your definition? That would be the circular reasoning (or circular definition) I am referring to.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
1. For proof you say that we see chance events in the world. You have misunderstood deterministic. Chance does not imply cause or non-cause, it implies an unknown variable.

2. You then state "numerous laws of nature exist which appear to be tied to probabilities rather than cause-and-effect." A law of nature can not, analytically, be dependant on probabilities. If it is then it is not a law of nature. That is like my saying that I saw something that looked like a horse but it had wings, hence horses now have wings.

3. You then talk about how we cannot in principle possibly reduce something as complex as weather to cause and effect. Wrong again. We are trying to do it all the time with supercomputers. You are continually displaying that you do not understand the determinists argument.



I am not trying to support my paper in this thread. No need to dissect it unless you consider it relevant. (I, of course, would be happy to defend it ad nauseum.) I added the numbers for clarity of comment and response.

1. When you say chance implies an unknown variable, you are falling into a famous trap. Einstein said the same thing in a well known 1935 paper. He argued for the existence of the hidden variables which would explain the otherwise random behavior of the photons I described in my previous post above. He argued that QM was not complete because a greater specification of the system must be possible.

Anyway, fast forward to today and that concept has been thoroughly discredited. If you are not familiar with the proof I can provide it. Bell 1964/5, Aspect 1981/2, etc.

2. "A law of nature cannot be dependent on probabilities..." Sure it can, that's what QM is. You are assuming that which you seek to prove. Of course, if you define all observations as being ultimately caused by something, you will prove that there is no random behavior. But that would be inconsistent with actual experimental evidence, I'm afraid.

3. As to weather, you are miles off track. The best supercomputers aren't even close. Hypothesizing that the weather will one day be predictable adds up to a lack of proof, not a proof.

[Agammamon]

Radioactive decay is an example of a random physical phenomenon. At their core most QM phenomenon are random. Being random does not imply being uncaused.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Radioactive decay is an example of a random physical phenomenon. At their core most QM phenomenon are random. Being random does not imply being uncaused.

I agree the decay is random. General viewpoint of QM is that the decay is not caused by anything. Not sure if you are saying that there is in fact an underlying cause.

[Knightmare6]

I would like to think randomness can exist, even in the most stable of things.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Knightmare6
I would like to think randomness can exist, even in the most stable of things.

My view is that causality and chance are relative concepts. It is dependent on the observer. If Heisenberg's constant were 0, then all observers in a reference frame would clearly see causes preceding the effects. Determinism would be total, all things would be predetermined, and there would be no element of chance in atomic reactions.

But h>0, so that explains why we see a mixture of causality and chance. The future influences the past to a certain extent, as accorded the value of h. If h were higher, the past would have even less influence on the future. As h increases, there would be progressively greater disassociation between what we do and the results that derive.

Just a concept... So I think randomness is an essential element of our universe, which still exhibits plenty of stability because h is relatively low. (Although I guess 'low' is still subjective.)

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Rusty,

But as a physicalist you cannot believe that anything was not caused. If it wasn't caused then it wasn't physical. Philosophically physical things must have two traits:

1) 'it' is a cause.
2) 'it' is an effect.

There is no one "philosophical definition" of physical. There are many. The definition you have given is one. The definition I have given is another. The one I have given is the definition used by science. It is also the definition used by the philosophy of physicalism. If you insist on applying a different definition, then of course none of the statements made about physicalism using its definition are going to make any sense to you. Likewise, an accurate description of physicalism using your definition of physicalism, isn't going to sound very "physicalistic".

I have no interest in such semantic trivialities. If you want to understand the physicalist position, then you should try to learn the terms it uses, and not let yourself by tied down to specific definitions that may not have any relevance to it. likewise, if you want to understand science, you will have to learn its terminology.

So a non-caused event would not be an effect, hence it would not be physical. It would, in fact, fit the philosophical definition of random.

Not necessarily. Once again, which definition? The most common definition of "random" I know of, philosophical or otherwise, is "not deterministic". And as I already pointed out, non-causal does not imply non-deterministic.

It appears that perhaps the word random is carrying too many connotations. In science random appears to mean highly unpredictable. In philosophy it means not an effect of anything.

I have no idea what it means philosophically.I suspect that, like everything else, it means very different things to different philosophers. Scientifically, it means non-deterministic. Nothing more, and nothing less.

So QP does appear to demonstrate things that are philosophically random?

It demonstrates things that are acausal, and describes them with a (scientifically) random model. There are many different philosophical interpretations of this.

But if I'm reading everything correctly there are disagreements about whether that is just an appearance or that is correct.

There is philosophical disagreement about the metaphysical implications of it. This has nothing to do with science, though.

If it does, then I believe I can work QP into an argument suggesting that the "agent" does exist. All I need is any non-caused occurance to suggest that the "agent" is possible.

Don't reinvent the wheel. Just about every dualistic and idealistic theory out there has had somebody try to work QM into their argument. Such a task is pointless, though. QM is a mathematical theory which makes claims and predictions only about observable events. There are no metaphysical connotations to it. All any of the above attempts amount to is taking advantage of the fact that QM is still not completely understood, thereby making intuitive arguments from ignorance seem very compelling.

Dr. Stupid

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Rusty,

There is no one "philosophical definition" of physical. There are many. The definition you have given is one. The definition I have given is another. The one I have given is the definition used by science. It is also the definition used by the philosophy of physicalism. If you insist on applying a different definition, then of course none of the statements made about physicalism using its definition are going to make any sense to you. Likewise, an accurate description of physicalism using your definition of physicalism, isn't going to sound very "physicalistic".

It demonstrates things that are acausal, and describes them with a (scientifically) random model. There are many different philosophical interpretations of this.

There is philosophical disagreement about the metaphysical implications of it. This has nothing to do with science, though.

Don't reinvent the wheel. Just about every dualistic and idealistic theory out there has had somebody try to work QM into their argument. Such a task is pointless, though. QM is a mathematical theory which makes claims and predictions only about observable events. There are no metaphysical connotations to it. All any of the above attempts amount to is taking advantage of the fact that QM is still not completely understood, thereby making intuitive arguments from ignorance seem very compelling.

Dr. Stupid

Very well said, Dr. S. As you point out, there have already been numerous and concerted attacks on the indeterministic side of QM, and this has gone on for at least 70 years. Your point about the wheel is right on.

The current state of theory is as follows: QM provides as complete a specification of the system as is possible (EPR/Bell/Aspect). Local deterministic theories - presumably the type Rusty envisions - are excluded from the realm of the possible. Non-local deterministic interpretations are within the realm of the possible, but they are indistinguishable from traditional indeterministic theories which respect c.

A careful study of the EPR paper, the Bell paper, and subsequent physical experiments by Aspect et al is critical to avoid going down a road that has been traveled extensively. These 3 papers are considered definitive.